By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
“Misusing the Future”
A presentation by Roger Pielke Jr. at a symposium on
ALternative Pathways toward Sustainable development and climate stabilization (ALPS).
Sponsored by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 9 February 2018.
Posted with his generous permission. PDF copy here.
Summary
“The talk focuses on a number of “fudge factors” in IAMs, specifically assumptions of spontaneous decarbonization, misuse of RCP 8.5 in climate impact studies and the dependence on Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in scenarios. Three other assumptions I could have included are temperature overshoot assumptions, estimates of climate sensitivity and misleading definitions of what constitutes ‘energy access.'”
.
Excerpt from notes by Pielke at his website
We identified the importance of assumptions of spontaneous decarbonization in IPCC scenarios more than a decade ago (Pielke, Wigley and Green 2008). Even though a solid piece of research, our 2008 paper and me specifically were the subject of a furious and sustained attack by the Center for American Progress, such as Joe Romm’s “Why did Nature run Pielke’s pointless, misleading, nonsense?” (the first of dozens of such pieces). With hindsight it seems clear that our paper in 2008 was the trigger for a long effort to drive me out of the climate debate (funded by Tom Steyer with lots of behind-the-scenes help from activist climate scientists).
Looking back at our research, and updating it in my Tokyo talk, I observe that heroic assumptions of spontaneous decarbonization not only survived our critique, but have since thrived. They showed up in the following set of IPCC scenarios (the RCPs) and now in the most recent set of scenarios {Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, aka SSPs}. Such assumptions are like a narcotic in the climate debate. They give the impression that the climate policies at the center of international climate diplomacy might actually work, even as evidence of their failure should seem obvious.
In the talk I reference a paper by MIT’s Kerry Emanuel as an example of the misuse of RCP 8.5: “Assessing the present and future probability of Hurricane Harvey’s rainfall.” I cannot overstate how egregiously bad this is. Emanuel’s paper is so bad not simply because it uses RCP 8.5. Rather it is so bad because its estimate of the impacts of climate change on Hurricane Harvey in 2017 are entirely a function of projected impacts in 2100., which he then divided by 6. Had Emanuel used any of the other scenarios out to 2100, then estimated 2017 impacts would have been much less. That’s right, the arbitrary choice of a 2100 emissions scenario determines the impacts of climate change from 1980 to 2017.
As explained in detail in my 2 books on climate (which in turn draw upon the IPCC and many, many peer reviewed papers), there is excellent and robust science on human influences on climate. Make no mistake, this science is robust and performed with integrity. However, the continued misuse of RCP 8.5 to generate scientifically unsupportable estimates of climate impacts places climate advocates in a position of promoting dodgy science to support political advocacy originally grounded in solid science. Seriously, Why do this? Scientifically empty studies based on RCP 8.5 legitimately give climate science a bad name. …The emperor’s clothes, though, they are lovely.
Bottom Line: The Emperor’s Clothes.
The three assumptions that I highlight in my talk support three political stances reinforcing the status quo. First, the costs of status quo climate policies are low. Second, the costs of inaction are already extremely high. Third, climate diplomacy is on track because a future, unproven, massive technology will save us. Without these assumptions, each of these political stances is questionable — or at least, should be opened to questioning. While important assumptions go unchallenged and challenging questions go unasked, the IPCC is about to release a report on 1.5 degrees (fantasy land).
————–— End of Pielke’s notes. —————-
About RCP8.5 — a worst-case scenario
As Pielke says, for four years RCP8.5 — the worst-case scenario from the IPCC’s AR5 — has been used to terrify people into support climate activists’ policies. Their key means for doing so was misrepresenting it as the “business as usual scenario” (details here). As I and so many others have shown, it is a useful worst-case scenario — assuming adverse changes in many important and long-standing trends. For example, that fertility stops declining and technological progress slows or stops (details here).
The most important factor in RCP8.5 is the increasing reliance on coal, so that the late 21st century — like the late 19th C — is run by coal. Of course, we see today the opposite happening. The US is shifting away from coal (here and here), as is most of the world (e.g., Britain). Slowly researchers are re-examining the plausibility of a coal-burning future, as in two papers by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi (in Energy Economics and Environmental Research Letters.
Even steadfast climate alarmist media like Salon and Bloomberg (reluctantly) admit that their fear campaign no appears unjustified. That does not the future will be pleasant. Continued growth in population and greenhouse grass emissions almost guarantee some hard times for the world in the mid-21st century. But not certain doom.
What might save us?
Pielke clearly sketches out the problem. What might save us? The obvious answer is new technology. Unfortunately, governments are investing relatively little in potential breakthrough technologies. But several private companies have promising fusion R&D programs. For example, Lockheed’s compact fusion reactor and TAE Technologies (formerly Tri Alpha Energy). There are roughly 200 fusion R&D projects around the world. We only need one to work. Of course, we cannot count on fusion — or any new tech — to save us.
It will take ten to twenty years to take fusion from success in the lab (when or if) to widespread commercialization. Adoption rates for new technologies in consumer goods are 2x or 3x those typical in the early 20th century. And if it is necessary to save the world, power generation systems can be converted in a decade or two.
For More Information
For more information see The keys to understanding climate change, all posts about Roger Pielke Jr., about coal, about the RCPs, and My posts about climate change, and especially these …
- Updating the RCPs: The IPCC gives us good news about climate change, but we don’t listen.
- How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
- My proposal: Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
- 2017 was warm. The next few years will be more important.
“The future isn’t what it used to be.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/15/delingpole-no-carl-hiaasen-miami-is-not-going-to-drown-by-2100/
Let me share with you my trick to handle this easily. I expect to be fully, completely, unswervingly dead. Using “the future” as a weapon to demand my compliance simply fails. And amuses me.
Been thinking about the “Adoption of Technology” graphic.
How about an “Adoption of Energy” graphic?
Wood to and charcoal were the primary energy sources Tree tars/resins were used in torches.
Then coal and whale oils both Sperm whale oil and reduced from blubber)
Then oil.
Then electricity from coal and oil and hydro.
Then adding nuclear to the electricity mix in the late 1950’s.
Then natural gas for electricity
Nuclear may be on its way out, but Wind and solar are rising.
What that graphic would show is essentially that Oil saved the whales from hunting extinction.
And thus the Exxon-Mobiles of the late 19th Century saved the whales if you think about it.
The Sperm whale and other high oil content whales were being hunted to extinction in the 19th Century by whalers. The Sperm whale oil was highly valued for its clean burning in lamps. Then oil came along and brought kerosene, thus the kerosene lantern. The economics of industrial-scale whaling collapsed.
Joel,
That’s a great idea! I’d love to see that graph. This would also support my guess that adoption times for new tech are shrinking. Think of the time period for each of those conversions.
Best of all is your meme: the oil industry saved the whales! Someone post this at 4Chan. If those guys run with it, it will be all over the internet in a week.
It is funny enough when you consider some failed self-described climate scientists telling you what their models hold for the future.
Then multiply that by what some failed self-imagined economists have in store for the future. (Sometimes they’re the same people.)
Wrong x Wrong = Astoundingly Wrong
Perhaps I should have said “self-imagined”, not “self-described”.
They imagine themselves competent to predict the future, then imagine themselves competent to diagnose the future economic problems plus, of course, the economic solutions. Rarely has any field, apparently, been so blessed with polymaths as climate science currently is, if they are to be believed. Of course the proof of that pudding is all in the future…
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), July, 2014
Re: Sustainability issue.
U,S., Other Countries to Partner for “Future Earth”
http://www.globalchange.gov/news/us-other-countries-partner-future-earth
And Future Earth organization, and Colorado universities.
http://www.futureearth.org/our-people-networks
Note the UN/United Nations organizations connections. And funding.
Mr. Pielke writes;
“We identified the importance of assumptions of spontaneous decarbonization in IPCC scenarios more than a decade ago …
Looking back at our research, and updating it in my Tokyo talk, I observe that heroic assumptions of spontaneous decarbonization not only survived our critique, but have since thrived. “They showed up in the following set of IPCC scenarios (the RCPs) and now in the most recent set of scenarios {Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, aka SSPs}.”
Logically speaking, I’d say there is likely a well developed plan to cause chaos/war in much of the world, and thus “depopulation” . . to save “us” . .
I’m just wondering what the issue is here! We have NO EVIDENCE to prove that CO2 is a problem – quite the reverse, in fact! Most evidence suggests the world is warming naturally after a natural cold spell (LIA) as it has done many times after similar events in its 4 billion year history. Evidence also suggests planetary life was under threat when CO2 dropped to ~200ppm and the addition of extra CO2 to the atmosphere in recent years, coupled with some slight warming has greener the planet. What’s not to like about that? We have hydrocarbon resources to last several hundred years based on current estimates (without even considering gas hydrates which are widely distributed but difficult to exploit today) so we have time to develop alternative energy sources in a sensible way rather than this headlong dash being forced on us by Politicians and green ideologues today! Get a grip, folks!
The problem Roger has is he doesn’t acknowledge the hypothetical nature of the source data sets. Like temperature anomalies for instance. Great work can be done trying to see what temperature variation is like in the past with uncertainty levels of 0.1 K or less ONLY if you make the assumption that the data was measured in a way that followed the conditions for the Central Limit Theorem. Which you cannot demonstrates because the equipment was not designed or maintained to achieve that.
But who wants to let hard metrological facts get in the way of a good story?
Just because this was done doesn’t then magically make the resultant derived data meaningful outside of the hypothetical context.
The problem with academics is that they seem to think the hypothetical world directly leads to real action. And sadly the concept of Summary for Policymakers gives them a shortcut to the real world without apparent accountability or ethics.
Good luck applying that standard to your food safety.
“Continued growth in population and greenhouse grass emissions almost guarantee some hard times for the world in the mid-21st century.”
What nonsense. Mankind’s greenhouse grass emissions – and indeed greenhouse gas emissions – clearly have a very small effect on the global temperature, and any moderate further warming will be beneficial. And CO2 emissions and global warming are greening the planet, for Heaven’s sake. As the world gets richer the population growth rate will fall.
With the advance of technology I’m quite optimistic about mankind’s future in this century and the next.
The biggest problem isn’t global warming. It’s not even a problem, it’s a benefit. The biggest problem is global warming alarmism.
Chris
It seems to me that the IPCC is indulging in little more than a “What if; then” excercise. A dangerous practice as the assumptions control the output.
Applying this practice to Newton’s : “Force equals Mass times Acceleration” enables you to blow up the the universe if you so require, by assuming that Force and/or Mass are constant. Thus when the velocity reaches the speed of light the universe blows up.
Similarly by playing with the multitude of assumptions involved in the climate system ( which is a chaotic system) you can choose whatever level of catastrophe you desire.
All in all little more than a political excercise to keep subservient scientists busy.
Generally I feel that scientists should extract their brains from their computers and go back to basic principles; such as: can you predict the future of a chaotic system by use of linear equations?
To those who kindly replied to me. This is my attitude to climate change. I’m not as nice or polite as Dyson mind you.
“Dyson calls computer modelling of climate ‘a very dubious business if you don’t have good inputs’ ”
Eric,
Dyson’s writings always deserve attention! See this article, one of his best about climate change (imo): “The Question of Global Warming“, in The New York Review of Books, 12 June 2008.
For those not familiar with this great man, see his Wikipedia profile.
Hay mod or mods does Larry moderate his own posts?
No he doesn’t, he does not have that access.
Moderators – you are taking too long – to moderate:
I can’t stand Larry Kummer’s writing either. His missives* actually make my stomach churn. I’m obviously not arguing against the person* – someone I’ve never met – but I am totally against “his” position! I distrust this writer more than anyone I have ever read.
The patronising persona he portrays in comments to his own posts is particular ridiculous.***
It is a constant mystery to me, why this “figure” – for want of a better word – is given a platform on WUWT.
And that makes me question every assumption I have about the truth of the reality of this forum. ;-(
* With the emphasis on miss, i.e. the verb, fail to hit or reach…etc!
**ad hominem.
***Ridiculous to me, of course!
Scott,
Can you explain what you think Kummer’s “position” is?
I’ve tried to figure it out, but cannot come up with a clear summary.
I asked him, here, to explain what it is he is for or against. He did not.
My assessment is that he has an ulterior motive, but it’s not clear what it is. But it is clear that his motive is not positive or productive.
If you know his professional background, a stockbroker who moved way up the chain in business, that is likely a clue.
Can you summarize his position?
Thanks. (Edited out derogatory term, we don’t need or want law suits Mod)
(your comments in this thread is about HIM, not the topic which is why you are getting moderation attention..) MOD
I think you may be trying to lead me, however the authors title is at the top of this post:
You would be living in a very small world indeed if you hadn’t heard of Fabian Socialism. That group named themselves after the Roman statesman and general.
Larry’s site is dedicated* to Quintus Fabious Maximus Verrucosus, (surnamed Cunctator).
Googling this name will probably tell you more than poor old Larry knows!
Larry is a thinly disguised authoritarian, a SJW with a degree in Psychology.
*In my opinion only, naming your site Fabious Maximus, is a clear indication of your intent and ideology.
(Stop talking about HIM, get on topic) MOD
Scott,
“You would be living in a very small world indeed if you hadn’t heard of Fabian Socialism. ”
Nope, that has nothing to do with us. Many in the past two millennia have drawn inspiration from Fabius Maximus — in many different and contradictory ways (as Americans have done from the Founders).
But there is no need to guess at the point of the Fabius Maximus website. The “About” page describes how founders, mostly retired US military, were inspired by FM’s leadership of Rome.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/about/
Wikipedia says what the Fabian Socialists learned from FM, from the title page of their first pamphlet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society#Establishment
Kent,
There is no need to guess at my views, let alone get Scott’s guesses. In the “For More Information” section it has a link to “see The keys to understanding climate change …”
There you will see a brief summary of my views and recommendations about climate change. It’s a bit dated about the “pause” (I seldom update it), but it is roughly accurate.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/science-nature/climate-change-67063/
“It will take ten to twenty years to take fusion from success in the lab (when or if) to widespread commercialization.” It always cracks me up when I see the reference to “20 years until commercial success” for fusion. In 1997 I attended a public briefing by researchers working on fusion-based generation at the University of Wisconsin. They struck a nice balance between enthusiasm and reality. One of them unforgettably described fusion as “the clean energy source that’s permanently 20 years in the future.”
That was 21 years ago, and miraculously, today it’s only 20 years away.
You need to re-read what you just quoted. It doesn’t say what you allege it says.
It says that once we successfully demonstrate a viable fusion process in the lab, it will take 20 years to commercialize it.
From the aside, it is clear that the author does not believe we have achieved lab success yet, and is not confident that we ever will.
LPPFusion of Middlesex NJ has built an experimental aneutronic fusion reactor (FF-1).This IS NOT the standard tokomak design, but is an approach to fusion using other configurations and physics (“Dense Plasma Focus”). The company is now in the final phase of reaching fusion, including use of the pB11 (hydrogen-boron fuel)
The FF-1 device has hit 3 Billion degrees C (which is necessary to preclude radioactive waste or contamination as a by product)… and held that temperature long enough for a reaction. The last step is to eliminate random molecules during the heating phase of the reaction from contaminating the plasma and thwarting the fusion process.
The LPPFusion team is currently installing the designs and materials for reaching fusion and should have definitive results by Fall- 2018. The FF-1 is currently #5 on the Fusion leader board and expects to hit net fusion output with the final, planned upgrade. The company is privately funded (crowd sourced) and the total budget since inception is $5 M. Recently research agreements were signed with UC San Diego (which is building a replica of FF-1) … and two national labs in Poland which specialize in Dense Plasma Focus.
Details
Fusion Leader Board:
http://lppfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ntauT-chart.png
How it works
Reaching ignition
Complete Album of Videos
Device video:
LPPFusion.com
Details:
sarastro92,
Interesting news. Thanks for posting this.
Lots of creative work being done on fusion. My impression (might be wrong) is that more approaches are being attempted than in the past.
Larry, you are correct. Early on, starting in the Fifties almost all the big government support for fusion was put into tokomaks. Over the decades, not much progress was really made, so governments foolishly doubled down on failure at great expense, hundreds of billions.
However, in the past 20 years or so, various private initiatives began integrating reactor designs based on different physical principles than the magnetic confinement approach. Among these startups LPPFusion has been the most transparent and outperformed the competition. The design at LPPFusion was originated in the early 60s and perfected by Eric Lerner, the chief scientist at LPFusion.
The company is tiny and a shoestring operation, but it relies on some profound understanding of plasma dynamics and evolution, many drawn from astrophysics. And so LPPFusion has leap-frogged the field by implementing the insights from plasma physics.
The company is crowd funded to ensure independence and now is in the final phase of reaching fusion that’s aneutronic (no radioactive waste) and directly generates electricity without turbines so it is ultra-cheap. The company has a handle on solving the density problem as described in the videos and with the pB11 fuel is poised to hit net energy. We’ll see if they can do it. We’ll have a pretty good idea in a few months, not decades and billions later.
Fusion power was 20 years to commercialization in 1960. It’s still 20 years to commercialization in 2018. When 1 watt of net power is produced from any of these fusion reactors, we may be 20 years to commercialization. None so far produced more energy output than electrical energy input.
It’s acknowledged that tokomaks are a failed technology… different fusion reactor types have shown rapid progress… so your pronouncements are without much factual merit… and only pertain to tokomak designs… maybe you should learn about the emerging designs and their progress before commenting
RGHE theory exists only to explain why the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. Not so. The average global temperature of 288 K is a massive WAG at the ”surface.” The w/o temperature of 255 K is a theoretical S-B ideal BB OLR calculation at the top of – the atmosphere. An obviously flawed RGHE faux-thermodynamic “theory” pretends to explain a mechanism behind this non-existent phenomenon, the difference between two made up atmospheric numbers.
The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool. As albedo increases, heating and temperature decrease. As albedo decreases, heating and temperature increase.
Over 8,600 views of my five WriterBeat papers and zero rebuttals. There was one lecture on water vapor, but that kind of misses the CO2 point.
Step right up, bring science, I did.
Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/19972-Space-Hot-or-Cold-and-RGHE
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15855-Venus-amp-RGHE-amp-UA-Delta-T
Roger Pielke Jr.
Don’t waste your time on climate model scenarios. Hear Prof. Chris Essex, physicist, mathematician, climate modeler since 1970s, why it’s fake physics or more colorfully “believing six impossible things before breakfast”